Afterthought:
As a substitute for actual evidence, fanatical zealotary has very little going for it; except in the minds of absolute morons, or the barking dog mad!
Rhrosty.

‘morning Keith,

The debate we have to have about Islam has not yet reached a meaningful stage. As the public becomes more aware and more fearful through the increased profile of Islam, the debate has taken on a new intensity but it is only driving the quest for even more public knowledge.

As the public makes enquiries outside the MSM, many are beginning to wonder just how things have become so alarming when they did not know how serious a problem this was in the first place?

Most are now realizing that a great deal of information is out there but has not been made public, thus they have been unable to make informed decisions and have not been alarmed however, it now seems to be a much bigger issue than has been presented and more importantly, possibly now too late to respond politically.

There would appear to be three groups in the international community, each has differing perspectives and motivations. The three groups can be identified as Islam, in all its manifestations, the general public who are expressing alarm at the lack of background information and the apparent lack of action to protect citizens. Lastly the Political and Media group that insists that Islam is not a problem.

So when I suggest that the debate so far is not meaningful, what I mean is that all the “old” arguments are still flooding the arena because two of the groups, Islam and the Political/Media groups, are still rhetorically where they have always been and refuse to acknowledge any basis for public concern. Meantime the now better informed public, is increasingly anxious. Not only through increased exposure to Islamic values and motives, but also because we are told there is no need to feel negative about Islam, yet when the public does express their negativity it is the public that is labeled as Islamaphobics, bigots, racist and dangerous rednecks.

Cont’d

Cont’d

The theory seems to be that being negative about Islam might insult the sensitivities of those trying to wipe out our value system, and through the resulting Islamic “backlash”, might encourage them to do it sooner? Thus those appeasing Islam are acknowledging their culpability in enabling this divisive conflict.

The interaction between these groups is shaping up to be a source of ongoing conflict and there is little evidence that anyone is prepared or capable of breaking the nexus.

The Political/Media group continues to deconstruct Islam into component parts in order to trivialize its impact. They use relativism to compare Islam with other religions, historical despotic regimes and the good guys vs. bad guys within Islam itself. Lone wolves, terrorists, mentally ill, simple thugs, social dropkicks, disenfranchised, radicalized and High jacking Islam are very popular.

What this seeks to do is reinforce the mantra that Islam is “really” a religion of peace and most of Islam is “moderate”. The truth might be that moderate Islam comprises only those who might not follow the literal words of their religion (yet), whilst the “extremists” do?

We now have a situation where every act of violence by various Islamic manifestations, will now be worn by the Islamic community, like it or not.

The other group that will wear the consequence is the Political/Media group along with their followers, who insist on the copious application of PC to convince us that their intellectualized correctness was right all along. The tale of King Knut commanding the tide to retreat might not convince the public to retreat as commanded by the Politicians and Media.

PC has survived on “thought terminating clichés and rhetoric”, but for how much longer can PC survive the emerging Islamic reality that PC has sought distort and censor?

My guess is that the PC Group will do more of what is getting it into trouble, rhetoric. Islam will continue to develop its parasitic relationship with the Western world and the public will continue to express its concern and angst, something has to give.

Cont’d

Cont’d

The PC brigade gave us problems with immigration, human rights, gender conflicts, global warming, social engineering, multiculturism and socialized science. Each of which is sold by rhetoric not fact. PC can only offer more of the same as argument, not to make a case but to defend their own “intellectualism”.

So weak is the case made by rhetoric that punitive measures have to be taken against those who prefer critical thinking, the non-believers. Many of the PC issues are backed by the use of pejorative names and threats, all in the name of free speech of course, especially from those who have already capitulated.

“Global Warming deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives. -- Professor Richard Parncutt, University of Graz, Austria, 25 October 2012

Really? How different is this to the threat of death in the name of Islam?

Free speech anyone?

Suse,

"It beats me how everyone seems to know what most Muslims think.
That's a lot of people!
No one can know what they all think."

Read the Koran, that'll tell you what they think.

Suseonline, could not agree more, the Muslim people have not caught up with the Western world with their belief system perhaps the Western world has not caught up that there is no such thing as Gods, let's hope sometime in a few centuries that the inhabitants then will look back and say "for goodness sake they used to believe in all sorts of Gods", which created wars, divisions between rich and poor etc, that is why now as you can see we all live in harmony and look after our fellow mankind., instead of hate back then with their Gods and religious beliefs.